ordinary meeting of council minutes · 2015-03-12 · ordinary meeting of council minutes 25 june...

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

MINUTES

25 JUNE 2013

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL MINUTES 25 JUNE 2013

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY .............................................................................. 2

2 DECLARATION OF OPENING ............................................................................................... 2

3 ATTENDANCE ........................................................................................................................... 2

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE ....................... 3

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ...................................................................................................... 3

6 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE .................................................................... 16

7 PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS ....................................................... 17

8 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................... 17

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING – AS

CIRCULATED .......................................................................................................................... 17

10 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR (WITHOUT DISCUSSION) ................................. 18

11 SIGNIFICANT STRATEGIC MATTERS ............................................................................. 20

OP0047 FINANCIAL RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE AUSTRALIAN

CONSTITUTION ........................................................................................................ 20 OP0048 ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON STRATEGIC

COMMUNITY PLAN AND CORPORATE BUSINESS PLAN .................................... 25 OP0049 ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON WORKFORCE PLAN

2013-2017 .................................................................................................................. 29 TF068 ADOPTION OF THE LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2013-2023 ........................ 33 SC109 RANGEWAY, UTAKARRA, KARLOO PRECINCT PLAN ......................................... 42 CI052 CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT

STRATEGY ................................................................................................................. 48

12 AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT..................................................................................... 53

13 STRATEGIC & POLICY MATTERS .................................................................................... 54

14 OPERATIONAL MATTERS .................................................................................................. 55

OP051 ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETING BY TELEPHONE .................................... 55 CC113 CLIPPER ROUND THE WORLD YACHT RACE ...................................................... 59

15 REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED ............................................................................................... 64

16 ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN

GIVEN ........................................................................................................................................ 66

17 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN .............. 66

18 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY PRESIDING MEMBER OR BY DECISION OF

THE MEETING ........................................................................................................................ 66

19 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................. 66

APPENDIX 1 – ATTACHMENTS AND REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED ..................................... 67


2

CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON TUESDAY, 25 JUNE 2013 AT 5.30PM

CHAMBERS, CATHEDRAL AVENUE

M I N U T E S DISCLAIMER: The Chairman advises that the purpose of this Council Meeting is to discuss and, where possible, make resolutions about items appearing on the agenda. Whilst Council has the power to resolve such items and may in fact, appear to have done so at the meeting, no person should rely on or act on the basis of such decision or on any advice or information provided by a Member or Officer, or on the content of any discussion occurring, during the course of the meeting. Persons should be aware that the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 (Section 5.25(e)) and Council’s Standing Orders Local Laws establish procedures for revocation or recision of a Council decision. No person should rely on the decisions made by Council until formal advice of the Council decision is received by that person. The City of Greater Geraldton expressly disclaims liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of relying on or acting on the basis of any resolution of Council, or any advice or information provided by a Member or Officer, or the content of any discussion occurring, during the course of the Council meeting.

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Mayor acknowledged the traditional owners of the land on which the Council meet and pays respect to the Elders and to knowledge embedded forever within the Aboriginal Custodianship of Country.

2 DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 5.32pm. 3 ATTENDANCE

Present: Mayor I Carpenter Cr R Ashplant Cr N Bennett Cr D Brick Cr C Gabelish Cr J Clune Cr P Fiorenza Cr R D Hall Cr N McIlwaine Cr N Messina Cr R Ramage Cr R deTrafford Cr T Thomas Cr S Van Styn


3

Officers: K Diehm, Chief Executive Officer P Melling, Director of Sustainable Communities C Wood, Director of Organisational Performance B Davis, Director of Treasury & Finance A Selvey, Director of Creative Communities N Arbuthnot, Director of Community Infrastructure S Moulds, PA to the Chief Executive Officer A Seaman, Executive Support Secretary K Chua, Manager, Financial Services M Jones, Business Analyst, Strategic Business Planning P Radalj, Manager, Strategic Business Planning S Chiera, Coordinator Marketing & Media D Granville, Manager Human Resources M Atkinson, Manager, Infrastructure Planning & Design J Felix, Community Engagement Officer Others: Members of Public: 7 Members of Press: 1 Apologies: Cr I Middleton Leave of Absence: Nil.

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON

NOTICE Nil.

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Questions provided in writing prior to the meeting or at the meeting will receive a formal response. Mr Gerard Poot, 478 Hall Road, Geraldton WA6530 Question There is one question I would like to ask the City Council? WHAT HAPPENED TO LAST YEARS SURPLUS INCOME? IN explanation of that question I would like to make the following points. There was a budget drawn up last year and accordingly you set the Rates for that year. You claimed that you were not aware of the extent of the re-valuation. I would have made a phone call to get some idea. Response: The Councillors were aware of the revaluation for Gross Rental Valuation (GRV) properties, and the City has never stated or claimed that they were not aware.


4

GRV property revaluations in 2012 were characterised by wide diversity in valuation changes, suburb to suburb, with some people experiencing very high upward revaluations, and others actually experiencing devaluation of properties. Councillors considered the detail of the revaluations carefully, and requested a range of very different rating options for deliberation and debate. Six options were actually considered, and detailed in the agenda papers, for the Council meeting on 9 July 2012, and debated on the night before Council adopted its 2012-13 Budget. Those options, requested for debate by Councillors, ranged from one option that proposed reduction of rates in the dollar for GRV residential properties by minus 14.9%, through to increases of 7.5%. For every one of the six options presented and debated, in budget workshops during May and June Councillors had been provided with analysis of the GRV revaluations, and the potential effects of rate in the dollar changes on the level of rates payable. After well-informed consideration of the wide ranging options, the Council ultimately adopted a rating model that saw 6.7% increases in rates in the dollar for most GRV properties. Question According to the budget there should have been a surplus which could have been used towards this year's budget. Response: The Council’s budget shows an expected operating loss of $7.4. Whilst there is expected to be a cash surplus this was only achievable through anticipated borrowings of $23.5M. Clearly this is not sustainable and the additional revenue from this year’s rate increases will go in part to reducing the Councils operating in the current and future years. Statement In my opinion there was a waste of a considerable amount of money. Example: Those eggs on the foreshore. They do absolute nothing towards the enhancement of the foreshore and look out of place. I was told that it would attract tourism. From my experience that is not correct. The Mayor once made the observation that he could not understand why the shops don't open on Sunday. Every business owner could have told him the reason. Again a lot of effort and money was wasted on the obvious. Response: Your opinion is noted. In relation to Public Art, community opinions on a particular work will always vary widely, and for that reason Council takes its advice from a committee that has on it respected representatives from arts


5

and cultural bodies. The City is committed to the provision of places and spaces that provide amenity not just for tourists, but for broader community members. The Foreshore has proven to be an attraction for tourists, and public art plays a part in the overall attractiveness of the Foreshore. Statement Staff is another place that could be made far more efficient. The times that I see hard working staff and staff just standing around because there is nothing for them to do. There is an advertisement in the paper for more specialist and as far as I can see there is absolute no need for these experts in Geraldton. In my opinion another waste of money. Response: Your opinion is noted. The City is committed to recruiting, developing and retaining the expertise and skills necessary for the delivery of quality projects and services to the community. Dr Barry Thompson (e-mail address supplied) Question 1 How much has amalgamation saved us? The “elephant in the room” at the City Council has always been the astronomic cost of running Geraldton's local Government bureaucracy, $23,000,000 for 2011, or in other words, 100% of the collection from council rates for that year! This needs investigation surely. I recall adverts for positions vacant in the CGG and the Geraldton Port Authority in the same paper. The CGG add was for one position on $170,000 annually, while the Port Authority’s was for $180,000, but that was THREE positions, and the Port. Our rates money is spent far too freely for our liking. Local Govt Amalgamations..................have saved us what??????????? And delivered us what???? Just how much money has been "saved" by the amalgamations that have been driven by our ambitious Mr Brun? We were promised rationalisation, less waste more efficiency etc. Where has THAT occurred? Certainly not in Geraldton. Staff numbers here have exploded and our rates have been driven through the roof. The greatest increase in all of Australia; Mr Tony Brun and you, the mayor and councillors have put us in the record books but for all the wrong reasons. When he was questioned about the devious manner in which this was achieved, the new head of finance for the City of Greater Geraldton, Mr Bob Davis, hid behind other councillors at the protest meeting rather than try to responsibly answer the question put to him by Mr Max Correy. Response The amalgamations have saved the City money. Obvious examples include the reduction in the number of Councillors, CEOs, Directors, management and the consolidation of resources e.g. buildings, fleet and equipment, have


6

all provided an opportunity for the City to provide improved and expanded services to the community. From a broader aspect, the amalgamation of the three councils over the last 6 years has meant that the City has been able to source large amounts of funding from both Federal and State governments, have greater capacity to engage politicians and have significant input into government decisions and programs, attract highly qualified staff, better plan for the future growth of the City and overall enhanced services for the community. Question 2 What are the credentials of Bob Davis, and was his appointment as head of finance one that followed prescribed advertising and due process? Who engaged him and who promoted him to head of finance? Was it just a sweetheart deal all done behind closed doors? Just how much did Tony Brun have to do with this? Were you as councillors asleep at the wheel, or were you fully conversant with Mr Davis's CV and fully supportive of his appointment? Response The Council does not disclose personal information in relation to staff, however in this instance Mr. Davis has agreed to allow us to disclose his details. Mr Davis is professionally qualified as a CPA for over 30 years and has held senior executive roles in Federal, State, Territory and Local governments in multiple different jurisdictions. Mr Davis’s previous roles have included being a Director in the National Audit Office, Deputy Auditor-General for the NT, Group Audit Manager for Wesfarmers, Director of State Financial Reform in State Treasury of Tasmania, Finance Manager for the BMA of WA and a Principal Management Consultant. Mr Davis was initially appointed to the role of Director of Commercial Enterprises in July 2009 and was responsible for the management of the Airport, Aquarena, Waste services, Family Day Care, and Queens Park Theatre. His appointment was conducted in accordance with Council’s normal process and involved a nationally advertised recruitment process. A restructure of the organisation in 2012 resulted in Mr Davis’s role changing to the Director of Treasury and Finance. This restructure was carried out by the former CEO and Mr Davis’s skills, abilities and work history make him eminently qualified to undertake this role. Council were advised of the restructure in a Briefing Note dated 30 April 2012 as follows by the former CEO:

Mr Mayor & Councillors I would like to give Councillors an update on some organisational review outcomes that are being implemented following consideration by the


7

Executive Management Team. We have been looking at key areas within the organisation and how areas best fit to deliver services and to improve the organisational functionality. We complete our review at a workshop we held on the 25th. As you would be aware local government is about to face its most significant regulatory and compliance change in its history with the adoption of the new regulations by the State Government which require all local governments have in place by the 30th June 2013 the following:-

Community Strategic Plan (with a 10 Year focus) – we already have the interim in place

Corporate Plan

10 Year Financial Plan (including Capital Work) – we already have one but it is currently undergoing review

Service Level Plans – a requirement to specify the level of service and resourcing to all our activities and assets

Asset Management Plan – we are currently leading the state in the roll out of these

10 Year Resourcing and staffing plan

As you would appreciate, these additional burdens and the compliance obligation require resourcing and consideration to ensure their proper delivery. The City has welcomed these changes as they will actually see local government in general operating in a more transparent and effective way in delivering services to their communities and by also becoming more financially sustainable (a path we commence pre-regulations some years ago). It is worth noting that the changes being brought in by the Government are modelled on those in Victoria and New Zealand, both of which commenced their change in the early 1990’2 and have seen the introduction of these measures incrementally over that period – as opposed to our change which will be compressed into the next 15 months. To this end the executive reviewed the core internal issues and constraints and identified 8 key internal actions to assist and improve our effectiveness and meeting of our compliance needs. A key outcome of this has been to undertake a minor review of the organisational functional responsibilities and the associated Organisation hierarchy (and chart). I have provided a copy of the amended chart which will take effective immediately operational, however there will be a transitionary arrangement for some areas which have the greater change. Much of the location issues will be covered during the move to the refurbished offices, which commences its first stage on the 4th May. (We are providing Councillors the opportunity to tour the refurbished former library prior to the start of the Concept Forum).


8

The most significant changes you would note are that the former Departments of Commercial Services and Corporate Services have been renamed Department of Treasury & Finance and Department of Organisational Performance. There has been some realignment of teams within the various Departments to better align teams which have similar objectives and outcomes.

Question 3 What is the level of productivity of the City of Greater Geraldton? I urge the immediate conduct of a productivity audit of the CGG. Should we not be demanding to have a productivity audit done on the council by an independent analyst? Of course we should, and at the earliest possible moment. Mr Des Semple is the man we want to do this!! A professional and an expert and we will not rest until this happens!! Response This question is extremely broad. The highest measure of the Council’s overall productivity is to compare Council’s rates and charges. However, for this to be meaningful you would need to ensure that the comparison Councils are providing the same range, level and quality of services. The following information sourced from the independently prepared West Australian Local Government Rates Comparison (14th Edition) 2012/13 published by UHY Haines Norton (WA) Pty Ltd in February 2013, shows that Geraldton’s average residential rates are neither the lowest or the highest for comparable local authorities. Accordingly it could be argued that its productivity is neither the highest nor the lowest.

City / Shire Residential Average

Residential

Minimum Payment

Kalgoorlie-Boulder $1,229.00 $805.00

Albany $1,266.00 $820.00

Bunbury $1,337.00 $894.00

Greater Geraldton $1,483.54 $955.00

Roebourne $1,994.00 $1,203.00

Broome $2,209.00 $1,070.00

Port Hedland $2,383.00 $1,040.00


9

Whilst this may be used as an indicative guide, the above comparison does not highlight the productivity for the separate and distinct services provided by the Council. The City of Greater Geraldton has recently appointed a new CEO and he is currently working with Directors to develop a program to improve Council’s productivity and efficiency. Essential features of this program are likely to include:

1. A Workplace Cultural Improvement Program, 2. A leadership development program for Managers and Supervisors, 3. Greater community participation and input into the budget

preparation process, 4. Increasing the level of accountability for Directors, Managers and

Supervisors, 5. The creation of an Efficiency Review Committee to review

performance and drive efficiencies throughout the organisation, 6. Improved performance reporting to the Community

Question Last but not least may I point out that it is our money you are spending and that it be nice to see it spend wisely? Response: The Councillors are very conscious that about half of the funding that they have available to them every year comes from ratepayers, the balance coming from operating and capital grants from the Federal and State governments. Ratepayers may be assured that every Councillor seeks to ensure that City funds are used wisely, in the best interests of current and future residents.

Euan Beamont, 164 Augustus Street, Geraldton Question I would like to know what the revenue and expenses (capital and operating), have been for the Geraldton Aquarena for the last 5 years. I would like a breakdown of each, (i.e. revenue, capital & operating expenses) on a yearly basis if possible.


10

Response The Operating statement of the Aquarena for the last 5 years is as follows:

Financial Year Ended 2012/2013 2011/2012 2010/2011 2009/2010 2008/2009

Year to

20.6.2013 Actual Actual Actual Actual

Operating Revenue 946,047.52 1,076,392.63 996,724.53 784,023.67 869,095.30

Operating Expenses 2,073,057.88 1,869,727.31 1,536,584.39 1,671,644.59 1,688,412.46

-1,127,010.36 -793,334.68 -539,859.86 -887,620.92 -819,317.16

Capital Expenditure 2,200,241.51 106,551.13 0.00 0.00 7,412.73

Net Cost to Council -3,327,251.87 -899,885.81 -539,859.86 -887,620.92 -826,729.89

Mr Colin Dymond – 65 Chapman Road, Geraldton Question As it appears there has been amongst ratepayer’s significant angst about perceived council overspending or having projects that the ratepayers don’t feel are within the council basket of responsibility. Therefore, I ask based upon the recent council agenda item about the SGIO car park, that i.e. is the project has definite cost centres and outcomes, will the council now carry this process through to all new and current projects so that ratepayers can see the true cost of particular projects, thus showing there has been productivity gains or profits and losses occurring. Response Council has adopted a Project Management Framework which will report to council in terms of milestones, benchmarks and the costs and performances against those costs and benchmarks. Question With those projects, i.e. the recent Drummond Cove sub-division, will it be made known to the general populous. As ratepayers we do not see them, but appreciate the confidentiality, but would like to know what projects happen. Response In the draft budget for 2013/14, looking at undertaking a review of the City’s land development activities, particularly in respect of the level of involvement and the risk exposure to the Council and the community. As part of the review there will also be a review on the reporting arrangements, which is expected to be reported to Council.


11

Question The process I believe can be carried out on the recent completion of the Drummond Cove land subdivision and a report back to the ratepayers of profits bade on a real basis? Response This question will be taken on notice. The response the question taken on notice is now provided below. The Drummond Cove development referred to by Mr Dymond was initiated some years ago by the previous Shire of Greenough. By the time of the Geraldton-Greenough amalgamation the development and subdivision project had been completed for some time, with only a very small number of lots remaining to be sold. The Shire of Greenough had already brought to account all costs of the development, and revenues from land sales covering the substantial majority of the development project. Such reports as were necessary for that project are assumed to have been made by the Shire of Greenough. At amalgamation, the City did not inherit the Drummond Cove development project as an ongoing project, and only gained the residual lots as assets held for the purposes of sale. Sale of residual Drummond Cove lots was concluded during 2009-10. In relation to any land development and subdivision projects initiated by the City since the Geraldton-Greenough amalgamation, such reports as are required in relation to progress and outcomes of major land transactions will be put to Council and included in annual reports, all of which are public reports. Question When will the full budget be available for the public to view before council is asked to vote on this in the proposed special meeting on the 2 July. Especially seeing that the proposed forward budget proposal in tonight’s agenda has foreshadowed a rate increase of 2.5%, does this not hang a pall over councillors before they have to vote? Response The Special Meeting of Council Agenda will be available by close of business Friday 28 June 2013 and will be posted on the City’s website for the community to view at http://cgg.wa.gov.au/meeting/special-meeting-council-2-July-2013. The budget process has been extensive and there have been at least three budget workshops with Councillors, the first starting on the 14 May 2013. The City has also actively consulted with the community and taken on board their concerns. The Long Term Financial Plan has to be adopted by 30 June 2013 as per regulations, and out of necessity it needs to encapsulate the draft 13/14 budget. It does not stop the Council from adopting a budget that is different from the Long Term Financial Plan.

http://cgg.wa.gov.au/meeting/special-meeting-council-2-July-2013

http://cgg.wa.gov.au/meeting/special-meeting-council-2-July-2013


12

Question Mr Dymond advised that the community would like to be more involved if they had further notice. Response This meeting is to consider the Long Term Financial Plan. Any amendments that will come out of discussion at this meeting need to be incorporated into the draft budget and published as soon as possible. The earliest that this can be achieved is Friday 28 June 2013. Question Finally the council has said there is an APP we can download so that action can be taken on items needing attention around the City, are you able to publish this app next time or alternatively post it on the city website. Response The app is called ‘Snap Send Solve’ and details can be found on the City’s website at http://www.cgg.wa.gov.au/your-council/contact/snap-send-solve. It is a free app for your iPhone or Android device that lets you report issues and provide feedback to your local council in under 30 seconds Australia wide. Visit http://www.snapsendsolve.com/ to download the free app.

Mr Max Correy – 51 Bayview Street, Geraldton

Question On page 7 of the agenda in reference to productivity, page 8 shows a table relating to various Councils and Shires, can I ask who the author of this answer is? What is the purpose of the table showing average rates in other councils when we are talking about productivity? Response Mr Davis advised he was part author of this response. The Councillors have been provided of a break-down of comparisons to the other regional cities and as councillors are aware if you compare the City to Albany or Bunbury our rating levels already incorporate the introduction of fair value accounting of assets on depreciation expense, while the other councils don’t. The relativity is biased by that because as we sit middle ground with the others, for example we are very similar to Albany, we think that is a very strong indication of productivity and efficiency of this organisation. Question How do you explain that you are also quoting Robourne, Broome and Hedland? If you do an analysis, a simple calculation on the same GRV value of Port Hedland and Geraldton, Geraldton is four times the rates as Port Hedland. What’s the relativity? You’re talking averages, it’s no relativity unless you’re talking about the same time of property. If you’re talking about a house in Hedland the same as Geraldton, Geraldton is four times dearer. So does that mean we are four times inefficient?

http://www.cgg.wa.gov.au/your-council/contact/snap-send-solve

http://www.snapsendsolve.com/


13

Response Let me add a little more to the answer I have already given. When you look at Geraldton, Geraldton is substantially larger than any of the other regional cities, including Bunbury, Albany and Kalgoorlie. For example, Geraldton has approximately 18,450 GRV properties, Bunbury has approximately 15,880, Albany has 16,815, with Kalgoorlie having less than that again 12,006. [On number of GRV properties, CGG is 16% larger than Bunbury, about 10% bigger than Albany, and over 50% larger than Kalgoorlie-Boulder.] So when we look at the number of GRV properties, that indicates the level of infrastructure required, and we are substantially larger. If you look at our population Geraldton is about 39,000, the next nearest to us is Albany at around 35,000 then Kalgoorlie and Bunbury both around 33,000. If you do a comparison with Bunbury, they no UV properties, and no rural service responsibilities at all – so that City is very different from this City in terms of nature and scope of responsibilities. Albany has a greater number of UV rural properties than this City. When you are looking at productivity you have to look at apples to apples comparisons. We look at a split between GRV for residential and non-residential, and the differences at that level of analysis between the benchmark regional cities. Look at the substantial differences in the number of GRV properties we’ve got and the larger population, then we look at the issue of relative rates, for residential properties, and for non-residential (commercial, industrial, tourism etc). We also undertake a deeper analysis, looking at the differences associated with proportions of properties on minimum payments. On these bases, this City is incredibly competitive. Supplementary information: Reference to percentage of Rates revenue utilised for Employee costs is simply not a useful indicator of productivity, as the matters are unrelated. Rates revenue should never be viewed in isolation from the total revenue and income stream of a Council. For example – in their 2012-13 Budgets, both Port Hedland and Kalgoorlie had employ cost estimates greater than 100% of Rates revenues – but in both cases they also had revenues from Fees and Charges greater than Rates revenues, and in both cases their Fees and Charges revenues were also greater than 100% of their employee costs. Clearly, the proportion of rates revenues utilised for employee salaries and wages has nothing to do with productivity, and also has nothing to do with scope and level of services, since it is the Total revenue and income capacity of a local government – including rates, fees and charges, operating grants and contributions - that determines service levels.


14

GRV RESIDENTIAL RATES 2012-13

Average Residential Rates 2012-13

(Including Minimums)

Average Residential Rates 2012-13

(Excluding Minimums)

KALGOORLIE $971.39 $1,166.42

BUNBURY $1,192.78 $1,238.34

GERALDTON $1,515.13 $1,551.24

ALBANY $1,513.19 $1,650.06

BROOME $2,010.64 $2,010.64

PORT HEDLAND $2,232.79 $2,336.32

GRV NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES 2012-13

Average GRV Non-Residential Rates 2012-13

(Including Properties on Minimum Payments)


(Excluding Properties on Minimum Payments)

ALBANY $1,582.35

$1,834.40

KALGOORLIE $3,948.44 $4,624.53

GERALDTON $5,591.44 $6,457.72

BROOME $6,430.13 $6,430.13

PORT HEDLAND $6,322.79 $9,900.65

BUNBURY $8,459.27 $9,877.24


15

GRV NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES 2012-13 Including Bunbury’s unique Vacant

Non-residential rate


(Including Mins)

Average GRV Non-Residential Rates Excluding Minimums 2012-13

ALBANY $1,582.35 $1,834.40

KALGOORLIE $3,948.44 $4,624.53

GERALDTON $5,591.44 $6,457.72

BROOME $6,430.13 $6,430.13

PORT HEDLAND $6,322.79 $9,900.65

BUNBURY $7,090.45 $8,242.36

Question I would have thought the productivity factor would have related to the efficiency of this council to deliver comparable to other councils in the state. The 11/12 budget says this council is running at 100% of rates to salaries and wages. The state average from what I can see is between around 65%-70%. Other words, this council is 30% over the average of the state. Response Mr Diehm advised he assisted with the response. The question was very, very broad. It simply asked what is the productivity of the council. We’ve talked about averages and believe that in a broad sense the comparison of average rates in the City of Greater Geraldton with other councils has some relevance. The response goes on to say that you need to compare apples with apples. I accept that we need to do some work in quantifying what our productivity is, which we will look at doing this coming financial year. But in terms of a very broad question, it warranted a very broad answer as it wasn’t specific. What you’re talking about with reference to 100% of our rates being used to fund operating activities and saying that other councils don’t use 100% of their


16

rates to fund operating activities, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are more efficient or less efficient. You need to look at the range and level of services and bench-mark, do a comparison between, the services that we provide and the comparable services that other local authorities provide and the relative costs. That’s an exercise that we have to go through. Question In that context if you’re looking at the relativity of productivity, that extra 30% cost to the rate payers from this council to other councils in the state, represent $8M, which is more than the 32% rate rise last year. So if we came back to the same productivity, same utilisation and percentage of utilisation of rate payers funds in council’s salaries and wages we wouldn’t have had a rate rise at all last year. That is the issue I raise. Response Noted. 6 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Existing Approved Leave

Councillor From To (Inclusive)

Cr T Thomas 1 August 2013 2 September 2013

Cr N Bennett 27 June 2013 22 July 2013

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR Messina, SECONDED CR ASHPLANT Cr N McIlwaine request for leave of absence for the period 1 July to 17 July 2013 be approved. Cr S Van Styn request for leave of absence for the period 27 June to 15 September 2013 be approved. Cr D Brick request for leave of absence for the period 7 August to 2 September 2013 be approved. Cr C Gabelish request for leave of absence for the Ordinary meeting of Council on 23 July 2013 be approved. Cr R Ramage request for leave of absence for the period 27 June to 11 July 2013 be approved.

CARRIED 14/0 5:48:08 PM

Mayor Carpenter YES

Cr. Fiorenza YES

Cr. Ramage YES

Cr. Ashplant YES

Cr. Brick YES

Cr. Clune YES


17

Cr. Middleton N/V

Cr. Messina YES

Cr. Thomas YES

Cr. Bennett YES

Cr. Hall YES

Cr. McIlwaine YES

Cr. Van Styn YES

Cr. Gabelish YES

Cr. deTrafford YES

7 PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS Nil. 8 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Nil.

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING –

as circulated RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the ordinary meeting of Council of the City of Greater Geraldton held on 28 May 2013 and the special meeting of Council of the City of Greater Geraldton held on 11 June 2013 as previously circulated, be adopted as a true and correct record of proceedings. COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR MESSINA, SECONDED CR DETRAFFORD RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the ordinary meeting of Council of the City of Greater Geraldton held on 28 May 2013 and the special meeting of Council of the City of Greater Geraldton held on 11 June 2013 as previously circulated, be adopted as a true and correct record of proceedings.

CARRIED 14/0 5:48:54 PM

Mayor Carpenter YES

Cr. Fiorenza YES

Cr. Ramage YES

Cr. Ashplant YES

Cr. Brick YES

Cr. Clune YES

Cr. Middleton N/V

Cr. Messina YES

Cr. Thomas YES

Cr. Bennett YES

Cr. Hall YES

Cr. McIlwaine YES

Cr. Van Styn YES

Cr. Gabelish YES

Cr. deTrafford YES


18

10 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)

Events attended by the Mayor

DATE FUNCTION REPRESENTATIVE

29/05/2013 Let's Celebrate Recognition - Morning Tea Mayor Ian Carpenter

29/05/2013 ABC Radio Interview regarding

Amalgamations - Geoff Hutchinson Mayor Ian Carpenter

30/06/2013 Mid-West Investment Plan (MWIP) Meeting Mayor Ian Carpenter

30/06/2013 Board Member Dinner with Sue Middleton Mayor Ian Carpenter

31/06/13 Mid-West Development Commission (MWDC) Strategic Planning (Board Session) with Sue

Middleton Mayor Ian Carpenter

31/06/13 Meeting - Deputy Mayor of Linfen Mayor Ian Carpenter

1/06/2013 Geraldton Men's Dart Association (GMDA)

Country Darts Competition Mayor Ian Carpenter

1/06/2013 Meeting delegation for Linfen Mayor Ian Carpenter

1/06/2013 Opening of Plinth - Batavia Park Mayor Ian Carpenter

1/06/2013 National Reconciliation Week - Street Festival

& Closing Ceremony Mayor Ian Carpenter

2/06/2013 Museum Consultation regarding Abrolhos

Islands Mayor Ian Carpenter

4/06/2013 Lunch with the National Basketball Team Mayor Ian Carpenter

4/06/2013 Concept Forum Mayor Ian Carpenter

5/06/2013 Citizenship Ceremony Mayor Ian Carpenter

5/06/2013 Meeting - Mid-West Joint Development

Assessment Panel - Reconsider Application Mayor Ian Carpenter

6/06/13 - 10/06/13

Jinzhou City, Liaoning Province China - Conference

Mayor Ian Carpenter

8/06/2013 Million Trees community tree planting Deputy Mayor Cr Neil McIlwaine 8/06/2013 Spalding Park Golf Club Open Dinner Deputy Mayor Cr Neil McIlwaine

11/06/2013 Meeting to Discuss Media & Communications

- Michelle McGinity, Manager – Communications, Marketing and Tourism

Mayor Ian Carpenter

11/06/2013 Presentation of Heritage Strategy Mayor Ian Carpenter

11/06/2013 Special Council Meeting – to consider submissions from rates in the dollar

advertised figures. Mayor Ian Carpenter

11/06/2013 Budget Workshop- Discussion of Long Term

Financial Plan Mayor Ian Carpenter

12/06/2013 West Australian Local Government Grants

Commission (WALGGC) -Meeting Mayor Ian Carpenter

13/06/2013 Mediation - DR 147 of 2013 City of Greater

Geraldton Rate Payers Demand Change Inc. - Meeting

Mayor Ian Carpenter

14/06/2013 Leaning Tree School Tour Mayor Ian Carpenter

14/06/2013 Regular meeting with Local Members - Mr Ian

Blayney & Mr Brian Ellis Mayor Ian Carpenter

16/06/13 - 22/06/13

ALGA Conference Canberra Mayor Ian Carpenter

18/06/2013 WALGA Breakfast Canberra Mayor Ian Carpenter

18/06/2013 Meeting with Regional Australian MPs Mayor Ian Carpenter

18/06/2013 Agenda Forum Deputy Mayor Cr Neil McIlwaine

19/06/2013 Regional Capitals Alliance (RCA) Breakfast

with MP's Mayor Ian Carpenter

19/06/2013 Regional Capitals Alliance meeting in

Canberra Mayor Ian Carpenter

19/06/2013 Van Gogh Dali & Beyond Official Opening Deputy Mayor Cr Neil McIlwaine


19

DATE FUNCTION REPRESENTATIVE

21/06/2013 Better Beginning Deputy Mayor Cr Neil McIlwaine

24/06/2012 Regular CEO & Mayor Catch up Mayor Ian Carpenter

24/06/2013 Meeting - Madame Wang China Consul

General Mayor Ian Carpenter

25/06/2013 Meeting to Discuss Media & Communications

- Michelle McGinity, Manager – Communications, Marketing and Tourism

Mayor Ian Carpenter

25/06/2013 Photo with Greater Geraldton Sporting

Achievement Grant recipients Mayor Ian Carpenter

25/06/2013 Ordinary Meeting of Council Mayor Ian Carpenter


20

11 SIGNIFICANT STRATEGIC MATTERS

OP0047 FINANCIAL RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-13-40975 AUTHOR: C Wood, Director Organisational

Performance EXECUTIVE: C Wood, Director Organisational

Performance DATE OF REPORT: 25 June 2013 FILE REFERENCE: GR/11/0036 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: No

SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s position in relation to the referendum for the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The Prime Minister has announced that there will be a referendum on the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution in conjunction with the 14 September 2013 Federal Election. The legislation to allow the Commonwealth to fund the referendum was passed by Parliament on 15 May. The legislation will enable the Commonwealth to use public funding to ensure voters are properly informed about the referendum. Measures outlined in this year's Federal Budget provided that in addition to the funding which will be provided to the Australian Electoral Commission to run the referendum, the Department of Local Government, Arts and Sport will receive $11.6 million to undertake a national civics campaign to provide information to the public on the referendum reform process. Passing of the referendum will allow the Commonwealth to provide funds directly to local councils for their communities and will remove the legal uncertainty about the Roads to Recovery program and ensure that this program and other programs where the Commonwealth provides funding directly to the local government will be able to continue. It will enshrine in the Constitution the ability of the Commonwealth Government to provide funding directly to communities where it believes this is in the national interest and formalise programs such as Roads to Recovery which have been directly funded for over a decade. The change proposed by the legislation is simple and pragmatic. Section 96 of the Constitution would be amended to formalise the capacity of the Commonwealth to provide funds directly to local government bodies formed


21

by a law of a state. It will not change the status of councils, nor would it give the Federal Government any power over local government. To date, 89% of councils in Australia have passed a resolution supporting the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. The City of Geraldton-Greenough has in previous years discussed this issue and in 2008 held a workshop to determine its position on this matter. In June 2008, the Council resolved the following:

The City of Geraldton-Greenough’s preference is that local government is recognised constitutionally as a full partner to federal and state governments. This means that appropriate funding be put in place for local government and that full autonomy be granted to govern in its own right.

This resolution is required to be updated to reflect the Council’s current position. Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and the State local government organisations will be undertaking media campaigns and will provide resources to assist councils to raise awareness in their communities. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: There has been no community consultation on this matter however council will be undertaking an awareness campaign once its position has been determined. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Councillors have received a briefing on this issue at the June Concept Forum. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Section 96 of the Constitution would be amended to formalise the capacity of the Commonwealth to provide funds directly to local government bodies formed by a law of a state. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications with this matter. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There will be financial implications for the awareness campaign which will be undertaken by the City, however, this is expected to be accommodated within the 2013/14 budget. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic Community Plan Outcomes: Goal 5: Governance

Outcome 5.2: Planning and Policy


22

Strategy 5.2.6: Supporting decisions to create a long term sustainable City.

Regional Outcomes: The continued funding of local government by the Federal Government will provide regional opportunities. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution will provide certainty of funding from the Federal Government which will allow City programs to continue. Social: There are no social impacts associated with this matter. Environmental: There are no environmental impacts associated with this matter. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts associated with this matter. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents associated with this matter. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority in accordance with Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. NOT DECLARE its support for the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution;

2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason: a. To be determined by Council.


23

Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority in accordance with Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to

1. DEFER THE DECLARATION of support for the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution;


CONCLUSION: The financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution is important an important decision for communities to ensure that they continue to receive the services and infrastructure required for the communities. It will also ensure greater funding security for the services that local government delivers to its communities.

EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority in accordance with Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DECLARE its support for the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution so that the Federal Government has the power to fund Local Government directly; and

2. CALLS on all political parties to support the referendum to change the Constitution to achieve this recognition.

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR HALL, SECONDED CR BRICK That Council by Simple Majority in accordance with Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DECLARE its support for the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution so that the Federal Government has the power to fund Local Government directly; and

3. CALLS on all political parties to support the referendum to change the Constitution to achieve this recognition.

CARRIED 12/2 6:07:42 PM

Mayor Carpenter YES

Cr. Fiorenza NO

Cr. Ramage NO

Cr. Ashplant YES

Cr. Brick YES

Cr. Clune YES

Cr. Middleton N/V

Cr. Messina YES

Cr. Thomas YES

Cr. Bennett YES


24

Cr. Hall YES

Cr. McIlwaine YES

Cr. Van Styn YES

Cr. Gabelish YES

Cr. deTrafford YES


25

OP0048 ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN AND CORPORATE BUSINESS PLAN

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-13-40992 AUTHOR: S Walker, Organisational Development

Coordinator EXECUTIVE: C Wood, Director Organisational

Performance DATE OF REPORT: 25 June 2013 FILE REFERENCE: GO/13/0001 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes

SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to seek Council’s adoption of the City of Greater Geraldton’s Plan for the Future which consists of the Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and the Corporate Business Plan 2013-2017.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: In accordance with the Department of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Advisory Standard and Local Government Act, the City is required to have an adopted plan for the future in place by 30 June 2013. The City’s plan for the future comprises two key documents:

1. City of Greater Geraldton Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023; and 2. City of Greater Geraldton Corporate Business Plan 2013 – 2017

In January 2013, Council adopted the Strategic Community Plan which is provided again with minimal amendments, these include:

1. Additional wording to strategy 1.1.1 Recognising and protecting our history and restoring heritage sites and buildings; and

2. Amendment of the Plan’s dates from 2012 – 2022 to 2013 – 2023

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Extensive community consultation was undertaken as part of the 2029 and Beyond project. The City’s plan for the future is based on the project’s two years of deliberative consultation and reflects the vision, goals and aspirations of the community. In accordance with legislation, the City sought public comment on its draft Strategic Community Plan in November 2012 and its Corporate Business Plan priority strategies in January 2013. Community Information sessions were also held in November and December 2012 prior to the adoption of the Strategic Community Plan.


26

COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Councillors attended a strategic planning workshop on 27 September 2012 during which the content of the Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 was developed.

The Strategic Community Plan was adopted by Council in January 2013. Councillors selected 25 priority strategies in January 2013 which are reflected in the City’s Corporate Business Plan. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 195 - Planning for the future states that:

(1) A local government is to plan for the future of the district. (2) A local government is to ensure that plans made under subsection(1) are in

accordance with any regulations made about planning for the future of the district.

Part 5, Division 3, 19C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 – Strategic community plans, requirements for (Act s. 5.56) POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and the Corporate Business Plan 2013-2017 have been developed in accordance with Council Policy 005 – Integrated Strategic Planning Framework. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The cost of this project has been included in the 2012/13 current budget and the actions in the Business Plan have been accommodated in the draft 2013/14 financial budget. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic Community Plan Outcomes: Goal 5: Governance


Strategy 5.2.7: Ensuring efficient and effective delivery of services

Regional Outcomes: The Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan will enable the City to provide sustainable community benefits to the region. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The implementation of these plans will have positive effects on the regional economy by supporting key initiatives for the community.


27

Social: Through these plans, the City aims to set long term initiatives to support the sustainable growth and development of the community. Environmental: These plans incorporate the City’s environmental sustainability practises and the implementation of local environmental sustainability projects. Cultural & Heritage: These plans acknowledge the area’s cultural diversity and aims to protect its historical significance. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Absolute majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. RECOMMENCE the planning process and develop a new Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan;

2. ADVISE the Department of Local Government of the City’s intent to continue the process past the 30 June 2013 compliance timeframe; and


Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. NOT ADOPT the City of Greater Geraldton Strategic Community Plan

2013 – 2023 and City of Greater Geraldton Corporate Business Plan 2013 – 2017;



28

CONCLUSION: The adoption of the Strategic Community Plan and the Corporate Business Plan will provide the City with direction to achieve the provision of long term benefits to the community and the development of sustainable local government. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the City of Greater Geraldton Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and City of Greater Geraldton Corporate Business Plan 2013–2017; and

2. GIVE public notice of the adoption of the City of Greater Geraldton Strategic Community Plan 2013–2023 and City of Greater Geraldton Corporate Business Plan 2013–2017.

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR BRICK, SECONDED CR MCILLWAINE That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the City of Greater Geraldton Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and City of Greater Geraldton Corporate Business Plan 2013–2017; and

2. GIVE public notice of the adoption of the City of Greater Geraldton Strategic Community Plan 2013–2023 and City of Greater Geraldton Corporate Business Plan 2013–2017.

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 14/0 6:10:36 PM

Mayor Carpenter YES

Cr. Fiorenza YES

Cr. Ramage YES

Cr. Ashplant YES

Cr. Brick YES

Cr. Clune YES

Cr. Middleton N/V

Cr. Messina YES

Cr. Thomas YES

Cr. Bennett YES

Cr. Hall YES

Cr. McIlwaine YES

Cr. Van Styn YES

Cr. Gabelish YES

Cr. deTrafford YES


29

OP0049 ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON WORKFORCE PLAN 2013-2017

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-13-41007 AUTHOR: D Granville, Manager Organisational

Development EXECUTIVE: C Wood, Director Organisational

Performance DATE OF REPORT: 25 June 2013 FILE REFERENCE: GO/13/0001 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes

SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s adoption of the City of Greater Geraldton Workforce Plan 2013-2017.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton BACKGROUND: The Workforce Plan is a requirement of the Department of Local Government’s Integrated Strategic Planning and Reporting Framework. Under the framework guidelines, the City is required to develop a workforce plan that:

Identifies adequate workforce resources to implement the Corporate Business Plan;

Conducts a thorough analysis of workforce data and identifies current trends;

Identifies what the City’s future workforce profile will look like if no action is taken to address identified negative workforce trends;

Implements strategies to address and overcome the identified negative workforce trends; and

Monitors and reviews the implemented strategies to ensure they address the identified negative workforce trends.

The Workforce Plan is compliant with the guidelines set by the Department of Local Government. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: There has been no community consultation on this matter COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: The draft Workforce Plan was presented to Council at the Concept Forum held on 4 June 2012.


30

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The Workforce Plan is a required component under Section 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations as follows:

A corporate business plan for a district is to — (a) set out, consistently with any relevant priorities set out in the strategic community

plan for the district, a local government’s priorities for dealing with the objectives and aspirations of the community in the district; and

(b) govern a local government’s internal business planning by expressing a local government’s priorities by reference to operations that are within the capacity of the local government’s resources; and

(c) develop and integrate matters relating to resources, including asset management, workforce planning and long-term financial planning.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There will be financial implications in implementing the Workforce Plan however these will be accommodated in the annual financial budget as determined by Council. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic Community Plan Outcomes: Goal 5: Governance


Strategy 5.2.8: Continuously improving business and governance frameworks to support a growing community.

Regional Outcomes: There are no regional outcomes from the consideration of this matter. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Attraction and retention of valued staff will enhance the delivery of services to the community. Social: There are no social impacts associated with this matter. Environmental: There are no environmental impacts associated with this matter. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts associated with this matter.


31

RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents associated with this matter. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Absolute majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. NOT ENDORSE the Workforce Plan 2013-2017; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. To be determined by Council. Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 19954 RESOLVES to:

1. ENDORSE the adoption of the Workforce Plan 2013–2017 as provided in the attachments with the following changes;

a. To be determined by Council; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. To be determined by Council. CONCLUSION: The Workforce Plan is a requirement of the Department of Local Government’s Integrated Strategic Planning Framework. In addition to meeting this requirement, the Workforce Plan will assist the City to develop a strategic and sustainable approach to attracting, retaining and developing an engaged workforce that is committed to demonstrating the organisation’s values and principles. The workforce plan will also assist the City to reinforce strong leadership and continuous improvement resulting in the development of a high performing and cohesive organisation for the future. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the City of Greater Geraldton Workforce Plan 2013-2017.


32

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR BENNETT, SECONDED CR BRICK That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the City of Greater Geraldton Workforce Plan 2013-2017.

CARRIED 14/0 In accordance with Section 9.3 (2) of the City of Greater Geraldton’s Meeting Procedures Local Law, February 2012 the motion was passed unopposed.


33

TF068 ADOPTION OF THE LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2013-2023

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-13-42475 AUTHOR: K Diehm Chief Executive Officer EXECUTIVE: K Diehm Chief Executive Officer DATE OF REPORT: 19 June 2013 FILE REFERENCE: FM/17/0002 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes

SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s adoption of the Long Term Financial Plan 2013-2023.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is a requirement of the Department of Local Government’s Integrated Strategic Planning and Reporting Framework. It enables Council to set priorities, based on their resourcing capabilities, for the delivery of short, medium, and long term community priorities. Year one of the LTFP represents the proposed budget that will be presented to Council for consideration and adoption. The Council must adopt a Long Term Financial Plan by 30 June 2013. The LTFP is a 10 year rolling plan that informs the Corporate Business Plan to activate Strategic Community Plan priorities. From these planning processes, Annual Budgets that are aligned with strategic objectives can be developed. The LTFP indicates long term financial sustainability based on fiscally responsible principles and allows early identification of financial issues and their longer term impacts, shows the linkages between specific plans and strategies, and enhances the transparency and accountability of the Council to the community. The LTFP includes 10 year financial forecasts comprising of the following statements:

• Forecast income statement; • Statement of cash flows; • Rate setting statement; • Statement of financial position; and • Equity statement.


34

These statements are supported by:

• Details of assumptions on which the plan has been developed; • Projected income and expenditure; • Methods of measuring performance - Key Performance Indicators

(KPIs); • Scenario modelling and sensitivity analysis; • Major capital works schedules; and • Risk assessments of major projects.

The Long Term Financial Plan is reviewed in conjunction with reviews of the Strategic Community Plan. A desktop review is undertaken every two years however it can be done annually prior to the development of the Annual Budget. A full review is undertaken every four years Assumptions As stated above the plan contains a range of assumptions that can be used in the development of alternative models. Assumptions would cover variables such as estimated growth and demographic changes, inflation forecasts, alternative rate increases, likely interest rate movements, debt funding options

and alternative service delivery options.

The major assumptions used in developing the LTFP are as follows:

Overarching assumptions In following overarching assumptions were used to develop the LTFP:

The plan should deliver an net operating surplus from ordinary activities within ten years;

The LTFP should meet the minimum financial sustainability benchmarks within ten years;

Debt levels should provide the Council with the ability to manage unexpected peaks in capital expenditure that may result from emergent works or other capital funding opportunities;

Increases in revenue from rates, fees and charges should be smoothed to avoid revenue raising shocks to the community;

In the absence of an identified process, moderate efficiency gains should be built into the LTFP;

Cash flow should be sufficient to meet the Councils day to day operations;

Reserves should only be kept where there is a legal or statutory requirement to do so;

Proceeds from land held for resale and from properties listed within the City’s Asset Register will be realised as per profiled in years 1 to 5. Development costs associated with land held for resale is supported by short-term borrowing facilities; and

Interest rates for investment funds will be around 4% to 5% over the life of the plan with the dollar return adjusted according to the annual available cash available for short term investment.


35

2013/14 Income and Expenditure Assumptions The 2013/14 Draft Budget has been incorporated into the LTFP and provides for the following percentage changes to the Council’s 2012/13 Adopted Revised Budget:

2013/14 Draft Budget Assumptions

OPERATING REVENUES

Rates 2.25%

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions 6.00%

Non-operating Grants, Subsidies, Contributions 195.00%

Fees and Charges 2.91%

Interest Earnings -16.60%

Other revenue -8.86%

OPERATING EXPENSES

Employee Costs 5.11%

Materials and Contracts -4.90%

Utility Charges 9.20%

Depreciation on Non-current Assets 0.00%

Insurance Expense 4.30%

Interest Expense -12.50%

Other Expenditure -23.10%

Further information in relation to the above assumptions for the 2013/14 Draft Budget is provided as follows:

The aggregate increase in rates across all categories in the 2013/14 financial year is 2.25%, inclusive of growth and of any GRV and UV revaluations;

The aggregate increase in Fees and charges is based upon the draft Schedule of Fees and Charges and the expected consumption of these services by the community;

Interest earnings are calculated upon the likely cash balances during each financial year;

Employee costs increase includes 4% associated with the Council’s Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, the remainder accounts for the filling of vacant positions and three new staff;

Materials and Contracts in the 2013/14 financial year will decrease by 4.90%, without impacting the current level and range of services provided to the community;

Utility charges for water and electricity have been calculated based upon the expected consumption and increases of 8.5% and 5% respectively; and

Interest rates for new borrowings in 2013-14 are based on current indicative prices issued by WATC in June 2013.


36

Years 2 to 10 Income and Expenditure Assumptions Years 2 to 10 in the LTFP includes the following assumptions with regards to changes in yearly budgets:

Year 2 to 10 Income and Expenditure Assumptions 2014 / 2015 2015 / 2016 2016 / 2017 2017 / 2018 2018 / 2019 2019 / 2020 2020 / 2021 2021 / 2022 2022 / 2023

Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

OPERATING REVENUES

Rates - Annual Increases 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2%

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

Non-operating Grants, Subsidies, Contributions

-67.9% -41.8% 262.0% -39.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

Fees and Charges 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%

Interest Earnings -20.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 48.0% 40.5% 30.0%

Other revenue 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

Rates - Growth in Rate Base 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

OPERATING EXPENSES

Employee Costs 4.0% 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

Materials and Contracts 2.5% 2.5% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8%

Utility Charges 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%

Depreciation 4.0% 5.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

Insurance Expense 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%

Interest Expense 100.7% -8.6% -20.7% -8.1% -0.9% -11.2% -12.1% -13.5% -13.9%

Other Expenditure 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

Population Growth 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%

Further information in relation to the above assumptions is provided as follows:

The aggregate increase in rates across all categories from year 2 to 10 is 5.2%, inclusive of any GRV and UV revaluations;

Population growth has been estimated at 1.8% which equates to a 0.9% growth in the rate base;

Employee costs continue to rise by 4% until the expiration of the Council’s Enterprise Bargaining Agreement at which time annual increases have been set at 3%;

No provision for an increase in staff numbers has been made in year 2 to 10. The Council’s staff establishment will be assessed on an annual basis and will consider a number of factors including the level of service required by the community and the ability to fund new positions;

In years 2 and 3, efficiency gains have been built into Materials and Contracts costs by limiting increases to only 2.5%, which is


37

0.7% below the estimated WA Local Government Cost Index of 3.2%;

Materials and Contracts cost for years 4 through to 10 have been set at 3.8% based upon the WA Local Government Cost Index of 3.2% with a small margin for growth; and

Interest rates for new borrowings have been calculated at 5% and based upon estimated debt levels throughout the life of the LTFP.

Long Term Financial Plan – Key Outcomes The LTFP provides for a smoothed transition to financial sustainability within a 9 to 10 year timeframe. The Council’s achievement of Key Financial Sustainability ratios and benchmarks, as provided in the Long Term Financial Plan, are as follows:

City of Greater Geraldton Long Term Financial Plan 2013 - 2023 Key Performance Indicators

2013/2014 Year 1

2014/2015 Year 2

2015/2016 Year 3

2016/2017 Year 4

2017/2018 Year 5

2018/2019 Year 6

2019/2020 Year 7

2020/2021 Year 8

2021/2022 Year 9

2022/2023 Year 10

Operating Surplus From Ordinary Activities

Benchmark: Surplus greater than $0

Current Ratio

Benchmark: Greater than 100%

Rates Coverage Ratio


Debt Service Coverage Ratio

Benchmark: Higher than 200%

Asset Sustainability Ratio

Benchmark: Higher than 90%

Asset Consumption Ratio


Asset Renewal Funding Ratio


Consideration of Submissions Received by Electors and Ratepayers In developing the LTFP, consideration was given to the matters identified in the submissions received from the community in relation to the proposed rates and minimum payments for 2013/14. The major themes from the submissions received are as follows:

1. The community’s capacity to pay due to cost of living increases and rising costs of government utilities;

2. The significant effective increase in the Council’s 2012/13 rates and minimum payments;

3. The need for Council to review its range and level of services and identify sustainable cost savings;


38

4. The spreading of proposed developments over a longer period; and 5. Council’s involvement in land development activities.

The recommended LTFP addresses the above issues in the following way:

1. The aggregate increase in rate revenue across all rating categories for 2013/14 is 2.25%. This small increase is consistent with the Reserve Bank of Australia national CPI forecast and should provide some relief to ratepayers who are having difficulty coping with the rising costs of living and last year’s rates increases;

2. The draft 13/14 Budget and LTFP have provisions for the following processes to find further efficiencies within the organisation:

a. A participatory community engagement process for the development of the 2014/15 Budget; and

b. A participatory community engagement process to review the level and range of Council services during the 2013/14 financial year.

3. The LTFP provides for the finalisation of committed capital works projects over the next two to three years and a significant reduction in new capital works through the remainder of the LTFP; and

4. The LTFP provides for consultation with the community in reviewing the Council’s land development activities, in particular, its level of involvement and risk exposure with regards to residential and commercial subdivisions.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Community consultation included the calling for submissions on the proposed 2013/14 rates and minimum payments and meetings with the City of Greater Geraldton Ratepayers Demand Change Inc. group during the State Administrative Tribunal’s mediation process. The Ratepayers Demand Change Group has agreed to endorse the recommended Long Term Financial Plan, on the condition that it provides:

a. For an effective 2.25% (CPI) increase in aggregate rate revenue across all rating categories in the 2013/14 Budget year;

b. For the City’s net operating result from ordinary activities (excluding land development) to be in a surplus position within ten years; and

c. For smoothed aggregate rate increases over the ten year period.

COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Councillors have been consulted as follows:

1. Budget workshop on 14 May 2013 to consider the proposed 2013/14 operating budget in total and by department, function and sub function and the draft Schedule of Fees and Charges;


39

2. Budget Workshop on 4 June 2013 to consider the proposed 2013/14 Schedule of Fees and Charges and draft 2013/14 capital works program;

3. Budget Workshop on 11 June 2013 to consider the draft 2013 LTFP and draft 2013/14 capital works program; and

4. Closed Concept Forum on 18 June 2013 to consider proposed amendments to the draft LTFP as a result of consideration of submissions received from electors and ratepayers in relation to the proposed 2013/4 rates and minimum payments.

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The Long Term Financial Plan is a required component under Regulation 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations as follows:

A corporate business plan for a district is to — (a) set out, consistently with any relevant priorities set out in the strategic community

plan for the district, a local government’s priorities for dealing with the objectives and aspirations of the community in the district; and

(b) govern a local government’s internal business planning by expressing a local government’s priorities by reference to operations that are within the capacity of the local government’s resources; and

(c) develop and integrate matters relating to resources, including asset management, workforce planning and long-term financial planning.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Long Term Financial Plan supersedes and replaces Council Policy CP104 – Financial Sustainability Policy. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The Long Term Financial Plan gives an indication of Council’s long term financial sustainability and allows early identification of financial issues and their longer term impacts. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic Community Plan Outcomes: Goal 5: Governance


Strategy 5.2.8: Continuously improving business and governance frameworks to support a growing community.

Regional Outcomes: The financial sustainability of the City will provide ongoing benefits to the broader region with the ability to attract funding to the area to provide services and infrastructure for the region.


40

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: It is important for the City to be financially sustainable in the long term in order to provide services to the growing community. Social: The Long Term Financial Plan provides for community programs to be continued into the future. Environmental: The Long Term Financial Plan provides for environmental programs to be continued into the future. Cultural & Heritage: The Long Term Financial Plan provides for cultural and heritage programs to be continued into the future. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precents associated with this matter, DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per the Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 19954 RESOLVES to:

1. ENDORSE the adoption of the Long Term Financial Plan 2013 – 2023 as provided in the attachments with the following changes;

a. To be determined by Council. 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. To be determined by Council. CONCLUSION: The Long Term Financial Plan is a requirement of the Department of Local Government’s Integrated Strategic Planning Framework. It provides a long term projection of the City’s financial sustainability and allows Council to continue to provide services to the level of the available resources. It also provides Council with an indication of its financial capacity to fund capital work over the next 10 years.


41

EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the City of Greater Geraldton Long Term Financial Plan 2013-2023.

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR VAN STYN, SECONDED CR GABELISH That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the City of Greater Geraldton Long Term Financial Plan 2013-2023.

CARRIED 13/1 6:19:44 PM

Mayor Carpenter YES

Cr. Fiorenza YES

Cr. Ramage NO

Cr. Ashplant YES

Cr. Brick YES

Cr. Clune YES

Cr. Middleton N/V

Cr. Messina YES

Cr. Thomas YES

Cr. Bennett YES

Cr. Hall YES

Cr. McIlwaine YES

Cr. Van Styn YES

Cr. Gabelish YES

Cr. deTrafford YES


42

SC109 RANGEWAY, UTAKARRA, KARLOO PRECINCT PLAN

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-13-39897 AUTHOR: M Thomson, Planning Officer and M

Connell, Manager Urban & Regional Development

EXECUTIVE: P Melling, Director Sustainable Communities

DATE OF REPORT: 5 June 2013 FILE REFERENCE: CS/700/0012 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes

SUMMARY: The City (in conjunction with the Curtin University and consultant Mackay Urbandesign) has prepared a draft Precinct Plan for the localities of Rangeway, Utakarra and Karloo. This report recommends the adoption of the Precinct Plan as a draft for the purpose of public advertising.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The precinct planning process for the suburbs of Rangeway, Utakarra and Karloo was undertaken between August and December 2012 as a response to the outcomes of the ‘2029 and Beyond Project’ undertaken by the City of Greater Geraldton. Part of the City of Greater Geraldton’s long-term vision is to continue to proactively plan for the population growth that is already occurring. By doing so the City of Greater Geraldton can ensure the infrastructure, services and amenities it delivers are more sustainable and will provide the community with a liveable and vibrant City. Such a substantial growth in population warrants more sustainable urban design and strategic planning to ensure that optimal planning decisions made today will provide a positive and dynamic legacy for future generations. The challenge in the City of Greater Geraldton is to identify the existing and future activity centres that can contribute to Geraldton becoming a network of interconnected activity centres, and how currently under-performing activity centres and their surrounding catchments can be enhanced, with input and support from local communities to become important components of a more sustainable and liveable city. The Rangeway – Utakarra – Karloo (RUK) precinct is one such area that is able to play an important role in the growth of Greater Geraldton. It is also an area that needs planning and urban design input to identify and guide the improvements required for it to attract urban renewal investment and secure its future. The precinct planning process is the first step in identify what and where those improvements within the RUK area might be.


43

A series of four precincts were identified in the precinct planning process as logical locations for more intensive activity. The four precincts are:

1. The Rangeway Activity Centre precinct centred on the existing retail centre and the GRAMS medical centre near the intersection of Utakarra Road and Rifle Range Road.

2. The Utakarra Activity Centre precinct centred on the existing retail

centre between Utakarra Road and Eastward Road.

3. The South Rangeway precinct centred in the vicinity of John Willcock College near the intersection of Scott Road and Assen Street.

4. The East Utakarra precinct centred in the vicinity of Woodman Park

near the intersection of Utakarra Road and Alexander Street. The RUK Precinct plan builds upon the vision and previous work undertaken across these suburbs with the community via the Integrated Local Area Plan (ILAP) for Karloo-Utakarra –Rangeway-Bundiyarra (KURB). The initiatives developed out of the ILAP work formed a good foundation for the principles now promoted within the current precinct planning for the area. The RUK Precinct Plan is included as Attachment No. SC109. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: To achieve a precinct plan that would be relevant to, and supported by the local community, the City of Greater Geraldton recognised the process required a significant level of community engagement. The engagement process revolved around a series of community engagement workshops held at three different venues within the RUK area during October and November 2012. At the first workshop the participants, drawn from the local community and relevant stakeholder organisations, were provided with background information about the RUK area as well as current best-practice principles in regard to sustainable planning and urban design. Participants were also taken on a walking tour of part of the RUK area to stimulate discussion. The majority of the workshop was dedicated to enabling the wide range of participants to provide their views on the RUK area. A preliminary set of plans and ideas were prepared for presentation back to the participants at a second workshop. After the presentation at the second workshop, the participants provided feedback on the plans and ideas tabled to enable the precinct planning concepts to be further refined. The subsequently refined plans and ideas were again presented to participants at a third workshop, by which time there was broad agreement on the precinct planning concepts.


44

There was extensive notification of the workshops via newspapers, community and school newsletters, media releases, the internet and radio. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Councillors were sent briefing notes prior to all three workshops with an invitation to attend. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Once adopted, the Precinct Plan will be used to inform the preparation of the new Local Planning Scheme for the City. It will be used to inform zoning and residential density designations for particular areas. The Precinct Plan will be adopted as a local planning policy pursuant to clause 2.2 of both Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (Geraldton) and Local Planning Scheme No. 5 (Greenough). POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A Local Planning Policy does not bind the local government in respect of any application for planning approval but the local government is to have due regard to the provisions of the policy and the objectives which the policy is designed to achieve before making its determination. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial and budget implications. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic Community Plan Outcomes: Goal 3: Opportunities for Creativity

Outcome 3.1 A community that embraces and celebrates diversity.

Strategy 3.1.1: Create vibrant and diverse neighbourhoods that meet local and regional needs.

Goal 4: Opportunities for Sustainability.

Outcome 4.1: Vibrant and sustainable urban and rural development.

Strategy 4.1.3: Lead and facilitate innovative urban design that provides for diverse built form that meet the needs of our existing and future communities.

Strategy 4.1.4: Develop, apply and regulate effective planning schemes, building regulations and policies.


45

Regional Outcomes: Commercial Activity Centres Strategy (draft): This Strategy provides a strategic planning framework for managing future growth in commercial activity by providing performance-based criteria for commercial centres. The Strategy informs the City and proponents of the potential scale for future retail and commercial development in existing and planned activity centres. The Strategy identifies the Rangeway Activity Centre as a “Large Neighbourhood Centre” with active intervention by the City to encourage additional development. It also identifies the Utakarra Activity Centre as a “Neighbourhood Centre” maintaining its current role with future private sector driven expansion possible. Residential Development Strategy (draft): The Strategy is a response to the changing local and regional economic environment and the need to provide a logical, coherent, highly liveable and sustainable model for residential development in the City to meet the needs of all residents and build strong communities. It broadly indicates the extent of residential and future residential land along with existing and proposed rural living areas. The RUK precinct is identified as “Medium Density Residential”. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: In response to the concerns and aspirations that participants raised in relation to the RUK area, and with regard to best practice planning and urban design, the following suite of high-level principles was established for the RUK area:

Places should be planned to be friendly to pedestrians and cyclists, who should be regarded in the planning process as being more important than cars.

Priority should be given to the amenity of the pedestrian environment to encourage walking as a pleasant and comfortable alternative to car use.

Make the street network more understandable.

Improve the existing street structure, and establish a street structure in new subdivisions that enables effective and efficient public transport.

Capitalise on the movement network to support the establishment and retention of local jobs and services.

Focus higher residential densities in and immediate (notionally within 400m) to centres.

Utilise localised increases in density to encourage redevelopment where it can provide frontage and passive surveillance to parkland.

Increase the diversity of homes within the area to provide different and relevant housing choices for different people.

Identify opportunities for new infill development that will bring renewed investment into the area.


46

Ensure that there is no net loss of parkland within the area. In other words, if an area of parkland is utilised for development, a similar area should be identified somewhere else nearby.

Identify a broader use of parks to make them more attractive and useable to everyone, and distribute park facilities to help differentiate the role of each park.

Establish a range of community spaces where members of the community can meet and interact with each other.

Establish an identity, through the use of landscape and landmark buildings, at the main entrances to the RUK area.

DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple Majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to clause 2.2 of both Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (Geraldton) and Local Planning Scheme No. 5 (Greenough) RESOLVES to:

1. REFUSE to adopt the Rangeway Utakarra Karloo Precinct Plan; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. To be determined by Council. Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority, pursuant to section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER the adoption of the Rangeway Utakarra Karloo Precinct Plan; and


CONCLUSION: The purpose of the Precinct Plan is to create a vision for the suburbs of Rangeway, Utakarra and Karloo and define the urban framework that will generate future growth potential. The fact that the precinct planning was undertaken with significant community input should provide the City with the confidence that it has an appropriate level of community support for the planning direction identified through the precinct planning process. The revitalisation process is a long-term process and significant changes can’t be expected in the short term. The important thing is to have a plan, patience


47

and a commitment from as many stakeholders as possible to bring the plan to fruition, and therefore Option 2 is not supported. Option 3 is not supported as it is considered that sufficient information has been provided in order to determine the matter. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to clause 2.2 of both Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (Geraldton) and Local Planning Scheme No. 5 (Greenough) RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the Rangeway Utakarra Karloo Precinct Plan as a draft and advertise it for a period of 21 days;

2. ADOPT for final approval the Rangeway Utakarra Karloo Precinct Plan should no objections be received during advertising period; and

3. REQUIRE a further report to Council should there be any objections received during the advertising period.

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR DETRAFFORD, SECONDED CR GABELISH That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to clause 2.2 of both Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (Geraldton) and Local Planning Scheme No. 5 (Greenough) RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the Rangeway Utakarra Karloo Precinct Plan as a draft and advertise it for a period of 21 days;

2. ADOPT for final approval the Rangeway Utakarra Karloo Precinct Plan should no objections be received during advertising period; and

3. REQUIRE a further report to Council should there be any objections received during the advertising period.

CARRIED 13/1

6:29:45 PM

Mayor Carpenter YES

Cr. Fiorenza YES

Cr. Ramage YES

Cr. Ashplant YES

Cr. Brick YES

Cr. Clune NO

Cr. Middleton N/V

Cr. Messina YES

Cr. Thomas YES

Cr. Bennett YES

Cr. Hall YES

Cr. McIlwaine YES

Cr. Van Styn YES

Cr. Gabelish YES

Cr. deTrafford YES


48

CI052 CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-13-42275 AUTHOR: M Atkinson, Manager Infrastructure

Planning & Design EXECUTIVE: N Arbuthnot, Director Community

Infrastructure DATE OF REPORT: 12 June 2013 FILE REFERENCE: PM/3/0005 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes (5x)

SUMMARY: The objective of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the City of Greater Geraldton’s Infrastructure Asset Management documentation including the City of Greater Geraldton’s Infrastructure Asset Management Strategy 2013 (“the strategy”). The strategy is included in Attachment A.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The strategy is an “Informing Strategy” into the City’s Corporate Business Plan and is a mandatory component of the state government’s Integrated Planning & Reporting Framework (IPRF). The infrastructure asset management plans (“the plans”) as previously endorsed by Council on 28 February 2012 for infrastructure assets (Buildings, Drainage, Parks & Transport) are included for reference in Attachments B, C, D & E respectively. In late 2012, it was brought to the City’s attention that despite Council-endorsed asset management plans being in place, the City’s overall asset management system was deficient in some areas with regard to the state government’s requirements under the IPRF. The City has been working with asset management consultants, Morrison Low (prequalified under the WALGA panel) on these aspects of the City's system to ensure compliance. To achieve ‘basic’ compliance against the framework, three (3) key areas were identified for urgent improvement:

Strategy

Improvement Plan and;

Levels of Service (LOS), customer & technical

The strategy explores the City’s current asset management system, ensures asset integration with the Community Strategic Plan 2012-2022, outlines the City’s asset base, addresses City policy implications, identifies City asset


49

management systems & performs a “gap analysis”, explores population growth & asset demand and models future asset renewal expenditure in order to meet financial performance ratios. The improvement plan is included in Appendix B of the attached strategy and is the result of the system gap analysis exercise. The main areas the City needs to focus on in future regarding system improvement are asset condition assessment (providing certainty of remaining useful lives of assets, improving accuracy of valuation & for risk management) and refinement of asset levels of service (which directly affects useful lives of assets, maintenance funding and consequently renewal expenditure/depreciation and the City’s ultimate operating position). Levels of service have been updated as part of this recent asset management compliance work and will be incorporated into the City’s asset management plans. Further internal and external consultation is required to explore aspirational levels of service and then interrogate affordability against the long term financial plan. Part of Morrison Low’s brief was to provide the City with certification that the asset management upgrade work undertaken would comply with the requirements of the IPRF. Compliance has been certified by Morrison Low in Appendix D of the Strategy. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: No community consultation has been undertaken as part of the asset management compliance work. Future refinement of customer and technical levels of service as per the improvement plan will necessitate community engagement. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: A briefing regarding the asset management system upgrade work was provided to Councillors at the Concept Forum on 4 June 2013. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Section 5.56 of Local Government Act 1995 – Planning for the Future states that:

1. A local government is to plan for the future of its district. 2. A local government is to ensure that plans made under subsection (1) are in

accordance with any regulations made about planning for the future of the district.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: CP004 Asset Management CP005 Integrated Strategic Planning Framework CP014 Financial Sustainability


50

FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The cost of this compliance project has been funded from the current 2012/13 budget. The previously endorsed plans were funded from a Department of Local Government grant. The renewal expenditure level proposed in the 2013/14 budget meets the direction of the strategy proposed for endorsement herein. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic Community Plan Outcomes: Goal 5: Governance

Outcome 5.2: Planning & Policy

Strategy 5.2.7: Ensuring efficient and effective delivery of services.

Regional Outcomes: Adherence to the City’s asset management documentation will deliver and maintain assets for the City to an appropriate level of serviceability that is affordable within the constraints of the long term financial plan. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The direction of the strategy ensures that future generations are not financially penalised for the asset investment decisions of today. It also ensures the City remains an attractive centre for economic activity into the future. Ongoing improvements to the plans themselves, particularly with regard to levels of service, will ensure the City makes decisions pertaining to the community’s assets in a consistent and sustainable manner. Social: The improvement plan in the strategy proposes further community consultation to confirm level of service expectations. Some aspirational levels of service may not be affordable and outside the City’s means, however the community will benefit with the certainty that assets will be maintained and renewed at appropriate intervention periods to ensure they remain safe. Environmental: Adherence to the City’s asset management documentation will minimise any inefficient consumption of natural resources. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural and heritage issues associated with the strategy. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents.


51

DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995, RESOLVES to:

1. NOT ADOPT the City of Greater Geraldton Infrastructure Asset Management Strategy 2013; and

2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason: a. to be determined by Council.

Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995, RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER endorsement of the City of Greater Geraldton Infrastructure Asset Management Strategy 2013; and

2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason: a. to be determined by Council.

CONCLUSION: Improvement work has been conducted on the City’s asset management system to ensure it meets compliance requirements of the IPRF. The improvement work itself and planned future improvements to the asset management system have been incorporated into the City’s Infrastructure Asset Management Strategy 2013. Adherence to the strategy and the endorsed plans will ensure appropriate asset levels of service are provided to the community at a cost that is affordable according to the City’s long term financial plan. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the City of Greater Geraldton Infrastructure Asset Management Strategy 2013; and

2. NOTE the Asset Management Plans for Buildings, Drainage, Parks and Transport, previously endorsed on 28 February 2012;


52

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR BENNETT, SECONDED CR GABELISH That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the City of Greater Geraldton Infrastructure Asset Management Strategy 2013; and

2. NOTE the Asset Management Plans for Buildings, Drainage, Parks and Transport, previously endorsed on 28 February 2012;

CARRIED 14/0

6:33:59 PM

Mayor Carpenter YES

Cr. Fiorenza YES

Cr. Ramage YES

Cr. Ashplant YES

Cr. Brick YES

Cr. Clune YES

Cr. Middleton N/V

Cr. Messina YES

Cr. Thomas YES

Cr. Bennett YES

Cr. Hall YES

Cr. McIlwaine YES

Cr. Van Styn YES

Cr. Gabelish YES

Cr. deTrafford YES


53

12 AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT Nil.


54

13 STRATEGIC & POLICY MATTERS Nil.


55

14 OPERATIONAL MATTERS

OP051 ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETING BY TELEPHONE

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-13-44403 AUTHOR: C Wood, Director of Organisational

Performance EXECUTIVE: C Wood, Director of Organisational

Performance DATE OF REPORT: 20 June 2013 FILE REFERENCE: GO/7/0008 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: No

SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to seek approval from Council for Councillor Bennett to attend the Special Council meeting via telephone link from Mildura.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: There has been a request for Councillor Bennett to attend the Special Council Meeting on 2 July 2013 via telephone link. Councillor Bennet will be in Mildura on personal business. The Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 Section 14A allows for attendance at a Council Meeting if:

(a) the person is simultaneously in audio contact, by telephone or other means of instantaneous communication, with each other person present at the meeting; and;

(b) the person is in a suitable place; and (c) the council has approved* of the arrangement *Absolute majority required

Suitable place means a place that the council has approved* as a suitable place for the purpose of this regulation and that it is located – (a) in a townsite or other residential area; and (b) 150km or further from the place at which the meeting is to be held under

regulation 12, measured along the shortest road route ordinarily used for travelling;

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: There has been no community consultation on this matter. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: There has been no councillor consultation on this matter.


56

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Section 14A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations allows attendance at a Council meeting by a Councillor who is more than 150kms from the meeting site. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial and budget implications. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic Community Plan Outcomes: Goal 5: Governance


Strategy 5.1.1: Supporting decisions to create a long term sustainable city

Regional Outcomes: There are no regional outcomes from the consideration of this matter. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no economic impacts associated with this matter. Social: There are no social impacts associated with this matter. Environmental: There are no environmental impacts associated with this matter. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts associated with this matter. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents associated with this matter. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Absolute majority is required.


57

OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Absolute Majority as per Section 14A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996:

1. NOT APPROVE the arrangement under which Councillor Bennett is to be taken to be present at the meeting by being simultaneously in audio contact by telephone with each other person present at the meeting;

2. MAKES the determination based on the following reasons: a. To be determined

EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES TO:

1. APPROVE Mildura as a suitable place for the purposes of Regulation 14A;

2. APPROVE the arrangement under which Councillor Bennett is to be taken to be present at the meeting by being simultaneously in audio contact by telephone with each other person present at the meeting.

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR HALL, SECONDED CR VAN STYN That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES TO:

1. APPROVE Mildura as a suitable place for the purposes of Regulation 14A; and

2. APPROVE the arrangement under which Councillor Bennett is to be taken to be present at the meeting to be held on 2 July 2013 by being simultaneously in audio contact by telephone with each other person present at the meeting.

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 14/0

6:37:39 PM

Mayor Carpenter YES

Cr. Fiorenza YES

Cr. Ramage YES

Cr. Ashplant YES

Cr. Brick YES

Cr. Clune YES

Cr. Middleton N/V

Cr. Messina YES

Cr. Thomas YES

Cr. Bennett YES

Cr. Hall YES


58

Cr. McIlwaine YES

Cr. Van Styn YES

Cr. Gabelish YES

Cr. deTrafford YES


59

CC113 CLIPPER ROUND THE WORLD YACHT RACE

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-13-41174 AUTHOR: C Budhan, Manager Arts, Culture &

Events EXECUTIVE: A Selvey, Director of Creative

Communities DATE OF REPORT: 10 June 2013 FILE REFERENCE: GO/6/0015 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes x1

SUMMARY: This report seeks a Council resolution on the hosting and sponsorship of the Clipper Round the World Yacht Race.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The Clipper Round the World Yacht Race (hereafter “Clipper”), an international yachting event, has visited Geraldton twice, in 2009 and 2011. Council has reviewed a proposal from Clipper inviting the City’s continued involvement as Western Australia’s only ‘host city’ for the 2013/14 and 2015/16 races and sponsorship of a yacht in both races. At the Special Meeting of Council on 29 January 2013, Council resolved to accept the proposal and seek funding of $1.1m over four years from Eventscorp.

That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. ACCEPT the two race package proposal from Clipper; 2. APPROVE $100,000 expenditure in the 2012/13 budget as part of the mid-year

budget review to meet immediate sponsorship requirements; 3. COMMIT $100,000 per annum in the 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 budgets to

meet ongoing sponsorship requirements; 4. COMMIT $50,000 per annum in the 2013/14 and 2015/16 budgets to meet ‘host

city’ obligations; and 5. SEEK funding of $1.1million over four years from Eventscorp.

Following Council’s resolution, the City submitted an application to Eventscorp on 7 February 2013 seeking funding of $1.1 million over four years. Eventscorp sent an email on 18 April 2013 indicating that the application was unsuccessful (attached). An email from the Executive Director of Eventscorp indicated that their decision was due to the following:

1. The discrepancy between Clipper Ventures’ market research and Eventscorp’s own research;

2. The significant increase in costs associated with sponsorship and hosting since 2009; and

3. Eventscorp’s budget limitations.


60

The CEO of Clipper Ventures advised by email on 6 June 2013 that the funding requirement outlined in the initial sponsorship proposal (i.e. $1.5 million) cannot be reduced. The timeframe for the 2013/14 race is such that the race starts in July from the United Kingdom. As a result, Council’s decision regarding the hosting and sponsorship of the Race is required urgently. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The success of previous visits by Clipper yacht have been possible due to the significant effort from a variety of stakeholders including, but not limited to, the Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mid West Development Commission, Geraldton Yacht Club and a variety of local businesses. These stakeholders have been advised that the City was unsuccessful in its application to Eventscorp. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: A Briefing Note was sent on 18 April 2013 indicating that the City has received notice from Eventscorp that its application for funding for Clipper was unsuccessful. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no statutory implications. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The total cost for the City to sponsor a yacht and be a host city for both the 2013/14 race and the 2015/16 race is $1.5M or $750,000 per race based on a two-race campaign which would be paid over a three-year period (2013/14, 2014/15, and 2015/16). A further $50,000 for each race year (2013/14 and 2015/16) would be required to meet the obligations of being a host city. Given that the Eventscorp application was unsuccessful, the City would be required to fund the total cost of $1.6M as alternative sources of funding are unlikely to be found at such short notice and as Clipper have advised the pending commitment cannot be reduced. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic Community Plan Outcomes: Goal 2: Opportunities for Prosperity

Outcome 2.2: Greater Geraldton as a leading regional and rural destination

Strategy 2.2.1: Attract, facilitate and promote regional, national and internationally significant events


61

Regional Outcomes: Economic, social and cultural outcomes are not limited to Geraldton as there are strong outcomes for the region and more broadly the state. The broader state-wide benefit of hosting a West Australian stopover and a yacht co-branded with ‘Western Australia’ was recognised by Tourism WA as is evidenced by their financial support for the City’s involvement in Clipper’s 2011/12 race. However, these outcomes are not commensurate with the cost of $1.6 million. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Global media coverage of the race is estimated by consultants as having a public relations value of £6.7million (AU$10million). These figures have been challenged by Eventscorp. Total economic benefit from national and international visitors is calculated at approximately $340,000. This level of return on investment for the City to fund the entire sponsorship is not strong. Social: The 2009 and 2011 stopovers in Geraldton provided capacity-building opportunities for the community via events such as Geraldton Senior College Sail and Try Sailing Days. Programs such as these enhance community life and build social capital. Environmental: There are no environmental issues. Cultural & Heritage: The media exposure and visitation generated by participation in Clipper and as a host city provides opportunity to showcase the culture and heritage of the City and region to an international audience. Tourism product currently enjoyed by Cruise ship passengers such as visits to Yamaji Art, heritage tours and HMAS Sydney II Memorial Tours, would benefit from the further exposure offered by Clipper. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: The City hosted the stopover of Clipper in 2009 and in 2011 hosted the stopover and with Tourism WA, co-sponsored a yacht in the race. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple Majority required for Option 1 (Executive Recommendation) and Option 3. Absolute majority required for Option 2.


62

OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. ACCEPT the two-race package proposal from Clipper; 2. COMMIT $500,000 per annum in the 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16

budgets to meet ongoing sponsorship requirements; 3. COMMIT $50,000 per annum in the 2013/14 and 2015/16 budgets to

meet ‘host city’ obligations; and 4. MAKES the determination based on the following reasons:

a. To be determined by Council Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER a decision on the Clipper two-race package proposal; 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reasons:

a. To be determined by Council CONCLUSION: Clipper would provide a good opportunity to showcase Geraldton and the Region to international, national and domestic markets. However, in the absence of external funding, it is the executive recommendation that it is not financially viable for the City to accept the proposal and for that reason Option 1 is the preferred option. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DECLINE the two-race package proposal from Clipper; and 2. ADVISE Clipper that in the absence of Eventscorp funding, the City

does not have the capacity to fund sponsorship requirements for of the two race proposal of $1.5M for the 2013/14 or 2015/16 races.

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR RAMAGE, SECONDED CR GABELISH That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DECLINE the two-race package proposal from Clipper; and 2. ADVISE Clipper that in the absence of Eventscorp funding, the City

does not have the capacity to fund sponsorship requirements for of the two race proposal of $1.5M for the 2013/14 or 2015/16 races.


63

CARRIED 14/0 In accordance with Section 9.3 (2) of the City of Greater Geraldton’s Meeting Procedures Local Law, February 2012 the motion was passed unopposed.


64

15 REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED

REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-13-42458 AUTHOR: K Diehm, Chief Executive

Officer DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: No FILE REFERENCE: GO/6/0002 DATE OF REPORT: 9 June 2013

BACKGROUND: Information and items for noting or receiving (i.e. periodic reports, minutes of other meetings) are to be included in an appendix attached to the Council agenda. Any reports received under this Agenda are considered received only. Any recommendations or proposals contained within the “Reports (including Minutes) to be Received” are not approved or endorsed by Council in any way. Any outcomes or recommendations requiring Council approval must be presented separately to Council as a Report for consideration at an Ordinary Meeting of Council. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENT: The following reports are attached in the Appendix to this agenda:

Office of the CEO

CEO027 Council Resolutions to 28 May 2013

Reports of Organisational Performance

OP0050 International Relations Development Advisory Committee (IRDAC) Meeting Minutes 20 May 2013 – 25 June 2013

Reports of Treasury and Finance

TF070 Statement of Financial Activity for the Period Ending 31 May 2013

TF071 Confidential Report – List of Accounts Paid Under Delegation May 2013

Reports of Sustainable Communities

SCDD075 Delegated Determinations

Reports of Creative Communities

CC114 Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – 8 May 2013

CC115 QEII Seniors Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – 15 May 2013

CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT: Not applicable. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple majority is required.


65

EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: PART A That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 22.(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to

1. RECEIVE the following appended reports: a. Reports – Office of the CEO

i. CEO027 - Council Resolutions to 28 May 2013 b. Reports – Sustainable Communities:

i. SCDD075 – Delegated Determinations; c. Report of Creative Communities:

i. CC114 Seniors Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 15 March 2013;

ii. CC115 – Public Arts Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 8 May 2013; and

d. Reports of Organisational Performance: i. OP0050 International Relations Development Advisory

Committee (IRDAC) Meeting Minutes 20 May 2013. PART B That Council by Simple Majority, pursuant to Sections 5.13 and 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to:

1. RECEIVE the following appended reports: a. Reports – Department of Treasury and Finance;

i. TF070 – Statement of Financial Activity for the Period Ending 31 May 2013; and

ii. TF071 – List of Accounts Paid Under Delegation for the Period Ending 31 May 2013.

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR VAN STYN, SECONDED CR MESSINA PART A That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 22.(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to

2. RECEIVE the following appended reports: a. Reports – Office of the CEO

i. CEO027 - Council Resolutions to 28 May 2013 b. Reports – Sustainable Communities:

i. SCDD075 – Delegated Determinations; c. Report of Creative Communities:

i. CC114 Seniors Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 15 March 2013;

ii. CC115 – Public Arts Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 8 May 2013; and

d. Reports of Organisational Performance: i. OP0050 International Relations Development

Advisory Committee (IRDAC) Meeting Minutes 20 May 2013.


66

PART B That Council by Simple Majority, pursuant to Sections 5.13 and 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to:

2. RECEIVE the following appended reports: b. Reports – Department of Treasury and Finance;

iii. TF070 – Statement of Financial Activity for the Period Ending 31 May 2013; and

iv. TF071 – List of Accounts Paid Under Delegation for the Period Ending 31 May 2013.

CARRIED 14/0

6:39:06 PM

Mayor Carpenter YES

Cr. Fiorenza YES

Cr. Ramage YES

Cr. Ashplant YES

Cr. Brick YES

Cr. Clune YES

Cr. Middleton N/V

Cr. Messina YES

Cr. Thomas YES

Cr. Bennett YES

Cr. Hall YES

Cr. McIlwaine YES

Cr. Van Styn YES

Cr. Gabelish YES

Cr. deTrafford YES

16 ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

17 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

18 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY PRESIDING MEMBER OR BY DECISION OF THE MEETING

Nil.

19 CLOSURE There being no further business the Chairman closed the Council meeting at 6.39pm.


67

APPENDIX 1 – ATTACHMENTS AND REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED Attachments and Reports to be Received are available on the City of Greater Geraldton website at: http://www.cgg.wa.gov.au/your-council/meetings

http://www.cgg.wa.gov.au/your-council/meetings

ordinary meeting of council minutes · 2015-03-12 · ordinary meeting of council minutes 25 june...

Documents